Seven-Year Results for RESILIA Tissue in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Replacement Patients: Age and Valve Size Considerations.

0 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Michael Salna, Joseph E Bavaria, David Heimansohn, Thomas Beaver, Bartley Griffith, Lars G Svensson, Philippe Pibarot, Michael A Borger, Vinod H Thourani, Eugene H Blackstone, Lorraine D Cornwell, John D Puskas, Hiroo Takayama
{"title":"Seven-Year Results for RESILIA Tissue in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Replacement Patients: Age and Valve Size Considerations.","authors":"Michael Salna, Joseph E Bavaria, David Heimansohn, Thomas Beaver, Bartley Griffith, Lars G Svensson, Philippe Pibarot, Michael A Borger, Vinod H Thourani, Eugene H Blackstone, Lorraine D Cornwell, John D Puskas, Hiroo Takayama","doi":"10.1093/icvts/ivaf176","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease requiring surgical aortic valve replacement are often younger and want to avoid lifelong anticoagulation. A multicentre single-arm non-randomized study, the COMMENCE trial, studied outcomes of RESILIA tissue aortic valves in bicuspid aortic valve patients through 7 years of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Of 672 patients who underwent surgical replacement of native aortic valves, 214 had bicuspid and 458 had tricuspid aortic valves. Propensity score analyses with inverse probability of treatment weighting were utilized to minimize bias due to measured confounders. Linear mixed-effect models compared longitudinal changes in haemodynamic parameters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients with bicuspid were significantly younger than those with tricuspid aortic valves-mean age of bicuspid: 59.8 (12.4) vs tricuspid: 70.2 (9.5) years; P < .001; 39/214 (18%) bicuspid aortic valve patients were <50 years old. There was no evidence of structural valve deterioration in any bicuspid aortic valve patients over 7 years of follow-up. At 7 years, there was no significant difference between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve patients in propensity score- and age-adjusted survival (91.9% vs 88.1%, respectively; P = .35), stroke, or reoperation. Among bicuspid aortic valve patients <65 years of age, there was no significant difference in prosthetic valve effective orifice areas and mean gradients between 3 months and 7 years postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients with bicuspid aortic valves had excellent outcomes with RESILIA tissue valves at 7 years with no evidence of structural valve deterioration. These results suggest a durable alternative for carefully selected younger patients wishing to avoid anticoagulation.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration number: </strong>NCT01757665.</p>","PeriodicalId":73406,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12342796/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivaf176","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease requiring surgical aortic valve replacement are often younger and want to avoid lifelong anticoagulation. A multicentre single-arm non-randomized study, the COMMENCE trial, studied outcomes of RESILIA tissue aortic valves in bicuspid aortic valve patients through 7 years of follow-up.

Methods: Of 672 patients who underwent surgical replacement of native aortic valves, 214 had bicuspid and 458 had tricuspid aortic valves. Propensity score analyses with inverse probability of treatment weighting were utilized to minimize bias due to measured confounders. Linear mixed-effect models compared longitudinal changes in haemodynamic parameters.

Results: Patients with bicuspid were significantly younger than those with tricuspid aortic valves-mean age of bicuspid: 59.8 (12.4) vs tricuspid: 70.2 (9.5) years; P < .001; 39/214 (18%) bicuspid aortic valve patients were <50 years old. There was no evidence of structural valve deterioration in any bicuspid aortic valve patients over 7 years of follow-up. At 7 years, there was no significant difference between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve patients in propensity score- and age-adjusted survival (91.9% vs 88.1%, respectively; P = .35), stroke, or reoperation. Among bicuspid aortic valve patients <65 years of age, there was no significant difference in prosthetic valve effective orifice areas and mean gradients between 3 months and 7 years postoperatively.

Conclusions: Patients with bicuspid aortic valves had excellent outcomes with RESILIA tissue valves at 7 years with no evidence of structural valve deterioration. These results suggest a durable alternative for carefully selected younger patients wishing to avoid anticoagulation.

Clinical trial registration number: NCT01757665.

二尖瓣主动脉瓣置换术患者RESILIA组织的7年结果:年龄和瓣膜大小的考虑。
目的:需要手术主动脉瓣置换术的二尖瓣主动脉瓣疾病患者通常较年轻,且希望避免终身抗凝治疗。一项多中心单臂非随机研究,即开始试验,通过7年的随访研究了RESILIA组织主动脉瓣在二尖瓣主动脉瓣患者中的预后。方法:672例自体主动脉瓣置换术患者中,214例为二尖瓣,458例为三尖瓣。使用治疗加权逆概率的倾向评分分析来最小化由于测量混杂因素引起的偏倚。线性混合效应模型比较了血流动力学参数的纵向变化。结果:二尖瓣患者明显比三尖瓣患者年轻(二尖瓣平均年龄59.8岁(12.4岁)vs三尖瓣平均年龄70.2岁(9.5岁);结论:采用RESILIA组织瓣膜的双尖瓣主动脉瓣患者在7年时预后良好,无结构性瓣膜恶化的证据。这些结果为精心挑选的希望避免抗凝的年轻患者提供了一种持久的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信